Update: SlurMax

The boys take a whack at the Mexicans. Plus: The MRC finds something about Dennis Miller it likes, and a CNS editor shows his anti-gay agenda.

By Terry KrepelPosted 6/24/2002

The ethnic slur-mongering at NewsMax normally confined to "humorist" Norman Liebmann appears to be spreading over into the rest of the site. "Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff" go after Mexicans in a June 17 piece.

It starts off with a bang: "Some think the endless World Cup is the most thuggish yet boring sports event on Earth, but here's one fun angle: Mexico's loss to the U.S. today has enraged our neighbors south of the border (if you can call an unguarded open sewer a border)." It goes on to quote a Mexican fan as saying, "There has to be an end to this disgrace where [Americans] treat us like rats and idiots."

No such luck -- NewsMax isn't done with you yet, and we're only on the third paragraph of the article. "Boo, hoo, hoo," the article retorts. "Gee, why might Americans treat with "disrespect" a nation that refuses to respect borders or control hordes of illegal aliens?" It couldn't be because those "hordes" are seeking a better life for themselves and their families by doing jobs those "disrespecting" Americans refuse to do, could it?

The article goes on to note that at one Chicago bar, "Despite the city's huge Mexican population, 95 percent of the crowd rooted for America. ... And you can bet the crowd didn't scream obscenities when Mexico's anthem was played." That's probably because "Limbacher and staff" couldn't get there in time.

The conclusion of the article takes the opportunity to revive that hoary ol' lazy-Mexican slur: "Now that the United States has advanced its farthest in the World Cup since 1930, plenty of Americans plan to stay up late or get up early Friday to watch the match with Germany. But the Mexicans will probably be taking a siesta." NewsMax suffers from a case of stereotype clash here: If Mexicans are constantly taking siestas, when do they find the time to become a "horde" bent on overrunning America?

How does one respond to such stunning, hateful narrow-mindedness? The best way, perhaps, is a reminder that the people who produce this stuff are the same folks who have deluded themselves into thinking this same output can somehow survive away from Richard Mellon Scaife's money trough and be a self-sustaining business -- and if NewsMax's planned IPO is any indication, even Scaife is tired of pouring money down this particular rathole.

Such words by "Limbacher and staff" only marginalize further a marginal operation like NewsMax.

* * *

Dennis Miller, conservative darling? It sure looks that way.

After years of trying to paint the acerbic comedian/TV host as a flaming liberal, the Media Research Center looked approvingly and uncritically at Miller in its June 20 CyberAlert after he made some conservative-friendly remarks regarding the war on terror during a recent "Tonight Show" appearance.

"(T)he comedian ... put the security and safety of Americans ahead of the civil rights concerns of liberals," writes MRC's Brent Baker, going on to note some of Miller's "politically-charged humorous observations."

Gee, that's quite a change from a couple years ago, when MRC's Brent Bozell was accusing Miller of being "breathtakingly vicious" and hurling "slimy barbs." Of course, that was when Miller was making fun of conservatives and was picked over conservative icon Rush Limbaugh as a color commentator on ABC's "Monday Night Football."

"A conservative is too controversial for ABC Sports but a conservative-bashing liberal is not?" Bozell whined in a July 2000 column, lamenting "lack of any public outcry over this choice."

Anyone familiar with Miller's career (and the folks at MRC have shown no great indication that they are) knows he has always been an equal-opportunity basher -- there are, for instance, plenty of Clinton barbs to be found in his canon, which you'd think would have made him an MRC fave a long time ago given certain MRC staffers' affinity for sophomoric Clinton-based humor. But because Miller's conservative-friendly remarks just happened to skip across MRC's ideologically blinded radar screen, he's suddenly a nice guy to the point where his "liberal" past isn't even mentioned.

The next time Miller says something that conflicts with MRC's politics, though, look for Bozell and Co. to tar the guy as a flaming liberal again.

* * *

Conservatives love to complain that the allegedly liberal ideology of workers and executives in the "mainstream" media result in advocacy for liberal causes in its news coverage. As CNS demonstrates, this can be at least partially attributed to the fact that's how it works on the ConWeb.

CNS has devoted a lot of coverage to the Traditional Values Coalition jihad against Nickelodeon for airing a news special on gay parents even though TVC had no clue as to the exact content of the show. The program aired June 18, and CNS followed up its coverage with a rare commentary by Scott Hogenson, CNS executive editor which demonstrates the kind of thinking that apparently went behind CNS' coverage of the issue.

The show, Hogenson declares, "was not a sensitive presentation on a delicate issue; it was a slick piece of cultural propaganda designed to intimidate kids." The teens who appeared on the show offered "often uninformed opinion"; the adults offered nothing but "gay proselytizing"; the program has a "pre-dermined intention" and was "void of factual information about the considerable documented health risks associated with homosexual contact."

Hogenson also noted that "entirely gracious remarks" from Rev. Jerry Falwell and Peter LaBarbera of the Culture and Family Insititute, as well as "a few" youths who disagreed with homosexuality on religious grounds were included, but he dismisses them as "thin intellectual gruel compared with the overwhelming liberal slant of the program" and "doubtlessly included in the name of 'balance.'"

Why does one get the feeling that Hogenson would get rid of some of that "balance" on CNS if he could? Not that CNS doesn't have a conservative slant already, but it looks like Hogenson would rather do some more "proselytizing" in the service of his ideology and boss Brent Bozell.

Showing the problem conseratives like Hogenson have in assuming that if you're not criticizing homosexuality you're "promoting" it, Hogenson concludes: "Nickelodeon and the show's producers offered up a liberal catechism for children designed to browbeat the next generation into further paying homage to one of the most destructive behaviors on the face of the earth."

He followed up June 24 with a commentary defending his "most destructive" remark (in which he declares that statistically, "homosexual behavior ... is as destructive as human warfare") coupled with another commentary from a gay parent critical of Hogenson's original piece (whose points Hogenson doesn't even address.)

But that sort of "balance" is just window dressing. CNS' acceptance of TVC's assertions at face value is the most telling evidence that it, with Hogenson leading the effort, has an agenda to push. Just a reminder that, CNS' declaration that it will "endeavor to fairly present all legitimate sides of a story" to the contrary, people like Hogenson and Bozell are not all that interested in "balance" -- they have their own propaganda, their own proselytizing, their own catechism. They are no different than those they accuse of the exact same behavior.